IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9530 of 2025 Decided on: 6th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meena Sharda …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 as is prescribed to the post of Shastri Teacher instead of pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 as was granted to them on his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be released with interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 as has been granted by this Hon’ble Court in Madan Lal’s case. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure P-1 in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Once the legal principle involved in the adjudication of present petition has already been decided, it is expected from the welfare State to consider and decide the representation of the aggrieved employee within a reasonable time and not to sit over the same indefinitely compelling the employee to come to the Court for redressal of his grievances. This is also the purport and object of the Litigation Policy of the State. Not taking decision on the representation for months together would not only give rise to unnecessary multiplication of the litigation, but would also bring in otherwise avoidable increase to the Court docket on unproductive government induced litigation. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid 3 representation of the petitioner dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh